masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:CAW4
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Talk:Biotics page. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- JoePlay (Talk) 00:08, March 5, 2010 Language Policy Just wanted to remind you (as I'm sure you took the time to peruse the Community Guidelines and Style Guide, as we ask all new editors to do) that this wiki does have a language policy. One of the main elements of this policy is that "Offensive language, either toward other editors or in articles, is not tolerated." (taken from the Language policy in the Guidelines) and that "Crude or offensive language" and "Insulting other users" are both offenses that will get users banned (taken from the Banning section of the Guidelines). Statements such as "Okay, I'm getting really tired of you being an asshole." certianly constitute crude or offensive language and insulting other users. This does constitute a warning. If I see it again, further action will be taken. Please remember that it is easily possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Remember, one of the first rules of a debate is that if you have to resort to insults, you've already lost. It doesn't matter how valid your points are, it'll just keep coming back to the fact that you resorted to name-calling. So, while I have no problem keeping the Solus debate going (while I find it aggravating, I also enjoy a vigorous debate and speculation-busting), it needs to stay civil. Thanks, SpartHawg948 03:58, March 25, 2010 (UTC) :Just becuase someone disagrees with you, then edits their own post, then you revert it, doesn't give you the right to call anyone what you did. Then to have the gall to put something on their talk page, that is beyond what anyone should have done. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised to see you banned for what you have done in the last few hours. You have no right to call anyone that just becuase they gave their opinion, or for that matter any reason. Lancer1289 17:58, March 25, 2010 (UTC) You DO realize, don't you, that editing comments made by other users is yet another bannable offense? Maybe before editing my comments and having the nerve to demand of me "Don't you fucking dare edit my post, asshole", you should take the approximately two seconds required to ensure that someone had edited your post. And while you did (sort of) apologize for it, the proper way to go about making amends would have been to restore my comment to the way it had been before you edited it. You can call other people names all you want, but actions speak louder than words, and when you look at it, both actions and words are pointing to one of us being deserving of the title "asshole" (although I can think of a few stronger terms that fit better), and it sure isn't me! SpartHawg948 19:39, March 25, 2010 (UTC) Not to butt in... I really don't have a proverbial dog in the Vindicator fight, but mightn't it be advisable to start things off this time around on a more... conciliatory note? Just a suggestion. Belligerence doesn't make too many friends. SpartHawg948 01:33, June 28, 2010 (UTC) "UP TO" doesn't mean only, I had noticed that it said it was theoretical and I fixed it since I've fired 5 round bursts with it. And saying that it would be an abuse of his power is being beligerent? Look at some of your posts, hypocrite. You insult people and try to excuse it by essentially saying 'It's okay because I could have said something worse.' Whenever I edit an article I do my best to tell that it's a fact, and then I have mods like you and Lancer saying it's unnecessary or that it shouldn't be there because you don't completely agree with it, despite it being true. Can you just stop harassing me? CAW4 01:40, June 28, 2010 (UTC) :How was I harassing you? I'm trying to be helpful. What about my post was harassing? Again, I could give two s***s about whether the Vindicator can fire 4 or 5 rounds, and I'm not trying to take sides. That's why I've sat on the sidelines other than leaving the previous post. And please, find me one instance where I've insulted someone then excused it by essentially saying 'I could have said something worse'. Please. Wow me. I wasn't aiming for harassment, which is why my first post was deliberately worded pretty damn neutrally. Just please, mind what I've said. SpartHawg948 01:44, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Except that the 4 round burst has been confirmed, so you are removing valid information. If you want to change then mod the information rather than jsut removing valid and confirmed information. Lancer1289 01:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC) :::Saying it can fire "up to 5" INCLUDES 3, and it INCLUDES 4. I've said more than once now that you can format it however in hell you want to, so long as it shows that 5 round bursts are possible. Undoing that edit to say that 5 round bursts are only theoretical is removing the information that it has happened. And SpartHawg, I was referring to Lancer when I said stop harassing me, sorry for being unclear. CAW4 01:55, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::I just saw the new edit, thank you. CAW4 01:55, June 28, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, it was more than a little unclear, seeing as I was the only one who had commented on the thread you replied on. Oh well, water under the bridge. SpartHawg948 01:56, June 28, 2010 (UTC) Removal of Valid content DO NOT remove valid content from our policiy pages. This is a very bannale offence as the Community Guidelines and Style Guide are only to be edited by Admins or people with admin permission, which you aren't and you didn't have permission. DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN. Lancer1289 02:19, July 13, 2010 (UTC) As noted on your talk page, apparently the entire paragraph is unnecessary and doesn't cover everything, as it's completely overdone by a bullet in the bannable offenses section. Isn't that 'unnessisary,' you god damn tool? CAW4 02:22, July 13, 2010 (UTC) :Actually, the language section covers other facets of language not 'completely overdone by a bullet in the bannable offenses section'. Of couse, if you'd ever red the site policies, you'd know that. In any case, see you in a year! :) SpartHawg948 02:24, July 13, 2010 (UTC) ::I've read it, and it is in fact completely overdone, at least by you're standards. The only thing that the bullet doesn't cover is that there's leeway on talk pages and it's fine as long as it isn't in articles or directed at another user. But then according to you, that's all rendered nil by the bullet. Leaving it only leaves false impressions on new users. I didn't know that trying to help new users by removing info that is incorrect. There is also nothing on that page that lets users know that it is to be edited by admins only, despite it being possible to make it only editable by admins. You're overreacting. CAW4 02:47, July 13, 2010 (UTC) :::Oh, it isn't incorrect to remove false info. It is incorrect to use insults, as you say, "directed at another user". Such as, oh, I don't know, "you god damn tool". I mean, even by your (as opposed to you're) standards, as expressed on Lancer1298's talk page, that is a direct violation of site policy. SpartHawg948 02:52, July 13, 2010 (UTC) Ahh, **** it. I was about to try to find some poorly worded section to keep arguing with, but to hell with it. I'm just being stupid and getting to involved with my edits (that's not to say I'm about to say I'm wrong, though). I'm just putting to much into every one of my edits to the point of being stupid. I'll try to help the wiki, though whether that manifests itself as me simply noting errors or ranting from this little spot. CAW4 03:23, July 13, 2010 (UTC) About the dreadnought argument The codex isn't the ultimate source for info, it's what the majority considers true (See the Reaper and Prothean pages) CAW4 19:43, July 13, 2010 (UTC) :Indeed it is. But when it comes down to the Codex vs speculation/original research, the Codex always wins. SpartHawg948 20:07, July 13, 2010 (UTC) ::No argument, just noting that it's not perfect (Perhaps ME3 will show more that the codex has wrong) CAW4 22:47, July 13, 2010 (UTC) Soverign "I vs we" Perhaps I'm just forgetting something, but I don't remember Sovereign referring to itself having multiple programs. I always thought of them being "each a nation" because they are all made of different species. CAW4 01:58, July 18, 2010 (UTC) :Whoops, nevermind. Just talked with Legion and got that info, ignore this. CAW4 16:12, July 20, 2010 (UTC) Commander Shepard Page Quote Why is there a quote there? Even though, if I remember correctly, you're forced into saying this, there's no way to have a quote that has any real bearing on Shepard's character. As s/he can be anywhere from the "I can kill anything and I will" that the quote's reminiscent of, to doing everything s/he can to avoid or stop fighting. My two pennies say there simply shouldn't be a quote on the Shepard page. CAW4 02:07, July 18, 2010 (UTC) Thorian-Reaper connection discussion I don't believe that there could be a real connection, as the human reaper and some other info on the reapers' characteristic section notes that the reaper starts out looking like the species that it harvests, and then changes to look more and more Sovereign-ish. (Actually, that just made me think of something else) CAW4 02:35, July 18, 2010 (UTC) Reaper apperance change Does anyone else think the Reapers' change in appearance from the species they harvested to the ship-like appearance seen at the end of ME2 is because of them gradually upgrading their armor, possibly by using indoctrinated slaves as workers? Is it even possible that the change may be to make it more ship-like in appearance, even if it is to large to be confused for another vessel? (For example, do you think the council would be quite as skeptical if it was a Prothean maybe not them since they may not know how they looked before going to Ilos or Keeper shaped ship coming down on Eden Prime?) CAW4 02:35, July 18, 2010 (UTC) Collector Crusier I don't see why Joker's comment was removed. It's in game, and it's not like the edit was stating it being a fact, it's worth noting. CAW4 22:34, July 30, 2010 (UTC) Multiple Links on the same page Could someone explain to me why we get rid of working links just because there's a link to the same thing earlier on the page? I don't see the point in doing extra work just so people reading the wiki have to do more work just to follow a link. I could understand not wanting to go through every page and add brackets to everything, but going through them to get rid of working links? What's the point of that? CAW4 14:54, August 1, 2010 (UTC) Biotic Extremists Recently someone added biotics that have "suffered extreme abuse to reach their full potential as biotics" as one of the types of biotic extremists. This in no way fits, since the only case known to us of that happening is the Pragia facility, of which Jack was the only survivor, and while I won't deny that she's extreme, she's not a biotic extremist. CAW4 11:52, August 4, 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I wasn't talking about the grammar, but how it's completely wrong... CAW4 16:34, August 4, 2010 (UTC) Thank you. CAW4 16:35, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :Almost as wrong as saying Jack was the only survivor of Pragia? Aresh seemed like a bit of an extremist to me. SpartHawg948 16:36, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::Sorry, I forgot about him, but I didn't see him pushing for biotic rights or separating himself from non biotics either. He's in the game for one conversation, and is out of the game after that, one way or another. CAW4 16:41, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :::Sort of like the biotic extremists who use direct action because they're pissed the Alliance won't give them reparations? But the bit about them was apparently cool to stay... SpartHawg948 16:44, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yes, we only see one example of anger from reparations or separation between biotics and non biotics, but the ideals of those extremists are present throughout the games, and, IIRC, is also in the Codex. Is speculation only a problem when it's not done by a mod? CAW4 16:46, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::Where are those ideals present? I'm simply saying that since we've seen an example of this, i.e. a biotic going off the deep end and taking action based on the horrible abuses committed to him, that it deserves to be noted, same as the other one-off incident of health/reparations-related extremists. If stating what is seen in-game is speculation, then the entire article is the issue, not just that one blurb. And if the bit you mentioned is in the Codex, it sure isn't in the biotic sections. Nothing about biotic extremism is. Do one-off examples only need to be removed when you don't like them? SpartHawg948 16:49, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Play Mass Effect 1. Talk to Kaidan. Listen to conversations in elevators. It's mentioned throughout the games, little snippets of conversation that show that L2 problems and biotics being separated from civilian culture (Like how the codex talks about how they're persecuted) is a well known problem throughout the games' universe. CAW4 16:53, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::You're right. It talks about how they are persecuted. That's it. Not how they themselves are extremists. Which is, after all, what this conversation was about. SpartHawg948 16:57, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::You're right. It talks about how biotics are persecuted. Kaidan talks about how L2's are persecuted. The game does not mention how biotic torture facilities are widespread. Just because you don't break off for half the campaign to hunt down rouge biotics doesn't mean there aren't more like the ones that you fight. Unless you're also going to put how STG operators volunteering to help krogan groups get rid of the genophage is a big problem, or how mercenary groups are routinely teaming up to hunt down vigilantes on Omega, this shouldn't be here either. CAW4 17:06, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::So... you're saying that based on Codex entries that don't say anything about biotic extremists, we need to just go and assume that there are more of the type of extremists who kidnapped Chairman Burns? We don't see them, or hear anything about them, or read about them, but they're there, and it needs to be stated as fact. Is that about right? Because your evidence is a bit about how biotics are persecuted. Note that this was never in dispute. What was in dispute was whether or not the bit about biotics being tortured and turning into extremists was. It's a once-off occurrence in-game. Just the same as is biotics going extremist due to health issues and demands for reparations. Demonstrating persecution doesn't also automatically demonstrate extremism. If it did, there'd be car bombs going off all throughout Tibet right now. Now who's speculating? Who wants to support claims with made-up evidence? You're trying to mislead people here with rhetorical slight-of-hand, using red herrings to try and change the argument. It's not working. Go back to shouting at yourself here in your little hidey-hole. SpartHawg948 17:20, August 4, 2010 (UTC) Let me make this perfectly fucking clear: :L2's are mentioned throughout the games as having problems and being pissed at not being given reperations. The game provides you with an example of an extremist for that cause. The L2 problems are still sporadicly mentioned. :Biotics in general are mentioned throughout the games as being persecuted and segregated. The provides you with an example of an extremist for that cause. The Biotic segregation is still in the codex. :Outside of Pragia, biotic torture facilities are never mentioned. This is the only one throughout all of Mass Effect's lore. It exists for one mission. It is not mentioned outside of that mission. There is nothing mentioned of it outside of that mission. ::To put it simply; There. Is. A. Huge. Difference. CAW4 17:33, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :::And let's make this perfectly (not going to violate language policy like you did) clear. :::L2s are mentioned throughout the game as being pissed of about not getting reparations. They only once are demonstrated (or even described) taking extremist actions as a result of this. :::Persecution and segregation are one thing, extremist acts by the persecuted group. One does not automatically lead to the other. :::Outside of Pragia, similar abuse of biotics is mentioned. It forms a key element of the plot of Mass Effect: Ascension. On the other hand, outside of one mission in ME, biotic extremism due to anger over health issues and lack of reparations is never mentioned. Being angry about something does not make one an extremist. It's quite simple. I'm not sure why this concept is so hard for you to grasp. There is, quite simply, a huge difference between violent extremism, and mere anger and persecution. :::There. Is. A. Huge. Difference. SpartHawg948 18:51, August 4, 2010 (UTC) Word of advice... Next time, remember that when you are banned, if you have any privileges left, such as being able to edit your talk page, you need to mind your P's and Q's. You are on the proverbial thin ice. Any violation results in the last remaining privileges being taken away, as has happened here. I tried to be courteous and leave you the ability to comment here on the off chance you really did want to contribute constructively. For a while, it seemed this was the case. But if you can't even follow something as simple as the site language policy, there's really no chance of you following any of the others, is there? SpartHawg948 18:58, August 4, 2010 (UTC)